asked the Minister for Justice the proposals, if any, he has to make the payment of ransom for kidnap victims a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Payment of Ransom.
55.
I could not undertake to indicate, in response to parliamentary questions, what specific legislative proposals I am considering at any given time. When I have plans to make legislative changes, I will bring them before the Government in the usual manner and announce them in due course in the normal way.
I am sure every other Member of the House is as astonished as I am to hear such a reply to such an important question, particularly in view of what I would regard as the deliberate attempt by the Minister for Justice last week to mislead the House in reply to a Private Notice Question which I tabled in relation to the payment of a ransom in the O'Grady case.
The Deputy should not state that a Minister deliberately sought to mislead the House.
I am stating it, a Cheann Comhairle.
If the Deputy is putting it as categorically as that he must withdraw it. He knows it is unparliamentary.
It is not unparliamentary.
Are you saying the Minister is guilty of a deliberate untruth?
It is on the record of this House.
The Deputy knows that an imputation of that kind against any Member of this House cannot be made and must be withdrawn.
I will withdraw the remark——
It must be withdrawn unreservedly.
I will withdraw it unreservedly in so far as I will endeavour to prove that the Minister misled the House. The reality of the situation——
A question, please.
Can the Minister tell us in relation to the payment of a ransom in the O'Grady case did he or any member of the Government know of the Garda Síochána involvement in the assistance of the carriage of money to Cork? Were the Garda Síochána involved in any way in escorting this money into the country? Were they in any way involved in escorting the money to Cork? Were they involved in any way in surveillance in the Cork region and what was their intention when the money was to be picked up in Cork? Were they to move in immediately or were they to act passively and observe what was happening?
That supplementary question has nothing whatsoever to do with the priority question which was tabled by the Deputy. Let me say to Deputy Barrett that I very clearly outlined in this House last Thursday what the position of this Government is in regard to the payment of ransom and what the position of the Garda Síochána is in regard to the payment of ransom. That is still the position.
Did the Minister and the Government know that the ransom in the O'Grady case was going to be paid, or is he so much out of touch as to avail of this opportunity to lob all of the fault onto the unfortunate members of the Garda Síochána in relation to this total fiasco? The Minister was obviously not in control at all. Is he trying to convince this House that he in no way knew that £1.5 million was being transported to Cork and is he trying to convince this House that members of the Garda Síochána were not present to survey what was going on? Is he trying to convince this House that money was not transported from Dublin Airport under Garda escort to Cork for the payment of a ransom? Is he trying to deny that the Government have changed the policy of previous Governments to resist the payment of ransom in kidnappings? Is he now saying to every potential kidnapper in this country that, if they sick out long enough, if they happen to be in Government they will succumb to that kind of pressure?
I want to repeat very clearly what I said regarding this issue last Thursday. There was no change whatsoever in the policy regarding the payment of ransom. There was no discussion or decision by the Government about changing policy. No ransom was paid. The Garda policy is as it was and as it will continue to be. That is the situation, irrespective of what Deputy Barrett is saying.
Question No. 56. I want to dispose of the other questions within the prescribed time. I have given Deputy Barrett a lot of latitude.
Was this matter discussed by the security committee of the Cabinet? Is the Minister not aware that the policy was to intercept any moneys being used for the payment of ransom? Why did the Garda not endeavour to intercept the money being brought to Cork? Were they acting on the instructions of the Minister?
The Deputy is delving too deeply into a matter which could be regarded as sub judice. I have allowed a lot of latitude.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister capitulated to pressure.
I repeat that there was no change whatsoever by this Government regarding policy on the payment of ransom. There was no change by the Garda with regard to that policy. John O'Grady was rescued thanks to the good efforts of the Garda Síochána and no ransom was paid.
Question No. 56.
This is my last supplementary. The Minister has clearly stated once again that there was no change in policy. He must be aware that the previous policy was to intercept any moneys being carried to pay a ransom, if it came to the attention of the Garda Síochána. He must know that was existing policy.
This is a statement rather than a question. This is Question Time.
If the Minister does not propose to outlaw the payment of ransom, we on this side of the House intend to introduce legislation, even as a Private Members' Bill.
The Minister capitulated to pressure and put lives at risk.
Let us have an orderly conclusion to Question Time today. Time is running out and I want to deal with the last remaining question.
There was no change whatsoever by the Government on existing policy with regard to the payment of ransom.
Of course there was.
Why was money escorted from Dublin Airport to the Bank of Ireland?
If Deputies ask questions they should give me an opportunity to answer. Again I say — and it is the problem of Deputies opposite as to whether they believe it — that there was not any change in policy. There was not any change of direction——
Why was the money not intercepted?
If the Deputy is not interested in listening, please let me answer the question for the benefit of others. Is it asking too much that I be allowed to reply?
Did the Minister approve the carriage of money?
The position as outlined by Deputy Barrett is untrue.
Will the Minister say if there was any change on the part of any member of the Government? He should stop referring to the Government as a whole.
There was no change by any member of the Government with regard to this matter.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 56 has been called.